test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Q's Winter Wonderland Grand Prize 2021?

1235»

Comments

  • alcyoneserenealcyoneserene Member Posts: 2,412 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    And every time you rant about the uselessness of high-level Eng BOFF slots, all I see is that you are incompetent at shipbuilding and want to build all of your ships one particular way and that way doesn't fit into a cruiser template.

    Learn to be flexible.
    How about addressing the facts brought forth, as opposed to "L2P" in a void.

    Y945Yzx.jpg
    Devs: Provide the option to Turn OFF full screen flashes from enemy ship explosions
    · ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
    «» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
    ﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
  • corinthalascorinthalas Member Posts: 2,235 Arc User
    edited December 2021
    westmetals wrote: »
    No, all you see is what you want to see, which is BS. I have and fly many ships which have commander level-engineering stations. They're just not *ONLY* engineering stations, so I don't have pick 2-3 skills of little or no value, which is apparently beyond your grasp. It's not about being 'flexible'. It's about most engineering skills being pointlessly niche, weak, or useless. But since you can't get that through your skull...
    westmetals wrote: »
    And every time you rant about the uselessness of high-level Eng BOFF slots, all I see is that you are incompetent at shipbuilding and want to build all of your ships one particular way and that way doesn't fit into a cruiser template.

    Learn to be flexible.
    How about addressing the facts brought forth, as opposed to "L2P" in a void.

    I did address the fact. The fact that I believe that @corinthalas is wrong about the upper level Eng BOFF slots being "useless", the "most engineering skills being pointlessly niche, weak, or useless"... all that.

    But since all of you can't get that through your skull...

    The fact of the matter is that @protoneus and I already suggested two very different uses for said slots... so yes I already addressed the facts.

    They just were not in that one specific post... because I didn't think it was necessary to repeat myself.

    I also already said that I disagreed on that basic presumption and believe that anyone who holds that position IS being willfully ignorant.

    I regularly run cruiser builds with five useful - and actively used - Eng BOFF skills, and although a Cmdr/Ens BOFF combo is a bit awkward, it works.

    Making a sandwich out of TRIBBLE doesn't mean you're not still eating TRIBBLE. Golfclap to you. Bravo. So special. I can do that too. It's still TRIBBLE, no matter how hard you try to justify it. Non-spec commander engineering stations are TRIBBLE. No amount of hand waving and weak excuses will change that. You know how often I find myself thinking, "Gee, I really wish I had this other engineering skill!" Never. Not once. Ever. Because they're weak, niche, or useless. And that's only true of Engineering.

    But go on. Keep telling me about all the ways you like your TRIBBLE sandwiches. You're really winning me over. /s
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 4,265 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    No, all you see is what you want to see, which is BS. I have and fly many ships which have commander level-engineering stations. They're just not *ONLY* engineering stations, so I don't have pick 2-3 skills of little or no value, which is apparently beyond your grasp. It's not about being 'flexible'. It's about most engineering skills being pointlessly niche, weak, or useless. But since you can't get that through your skull...
    westmetals wrote: »
    And every time you rant about the uselessness of high-level Eng BOFF slots, all I see is that you are incompetent at shipbuilding and want to build all of your ships one particular way and that way doesn't fit into a cruiser template.

    Learn to be flexible.
    How about addressing the facts brought forth, as opposed to "L2P" in a void.

    I did address the fact. The fact that I believe that @corinthalas is wrong about the upper level Eng BOFF slots being "useless", the "most engineering skills being pointlessly niche, weak, or useless"... all that.

    But since all of you can't get that through your skull...

    The fact of the matter is that @protoneus and I already suggested two very different uses for said slots... so yes I already addressed the facts.

    They just were not in that one specific post... because I didn't think it was necessary to repeat myself.

    I also already said that I disagreed on that basic presumption and believe that anyone who holds that position IS being willfully ignorant.

    I regularly run cruiser builds with five useful - and actively used - Eng BOFF skills, and although a Cmdr/Ens BOFF combo is a bit awkward, it works.

    Making a sandwich out of TRIBBLE doesn't mean you're not still eating TRIBBLE. Golfclap to you. Bravo. So special. I can do that too. It's still TRIBBLE, no matter how hard you try to justify it. Non-spec commander engineering stations are TRIBBLE. No amount of hand waving and weak excuses will change that. You know how often I find myself thinking, "Gee, I really wish I had this other engineering skill!" Never. Not once. Ever. Because they're weak, niche, or useless. And that's only true of Engineering.

    But go on. Keep telling me about all the ways you like your TRIBBLE sandwiches. You're really winning me over. /s
    All those talks and I'm here, just putting Eng Team, Deploy Construction Shuttles and RSP on all my ships, barely bothering to min-max and making it work in every situation.
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • protoneousprotoneous Member Posts: 2,595 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    I regularly run cruiser builds with five useful - and actively used - Eng BOFF skills
    As do all kinds of players. Thanks for helping to go through some of the many ways the event ship's bridge officer abilities can be used and even coming up with a unique solution to incorporate a torpedo. I'm looking forward to setting up this year's winter event ship and hope others are as well.
  • millefune#8468 millefune Member Posts: 304 Arc User
    I just hope that the investigate/stabalize thingies actually work this year, so I can get some of the emote thingies I missed out on. Or is that the Anniversary Event? I just remember it being in the northern hemisphere's winter time IRL.
  • alcyoneserenealcyoneserene Member Posts: 2,412 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    I did address the fact. The fact that I believe that @corinthalas is wrong about the upper level Eng BOFF slots being "useless", the "most engineering skills being pointlessly niche, weak, or useless"... all that.

    But since all of you can't get that through your skull...

    The fact of the matter is that @protoneus and I already suggested two very different uses for said slots... so yes I already addressed the facts.

    They just were not in that one specific post... because I didn't think it was necessary to repeat myself.

    I also already said that I disagreed on that basic presumption and believe that anyone who holds that position IS being willfully ignorant.

    I regularly run cruiser builds with five useful - and actively used - Eng BOFF skills, and although a Cmdr/Ens BOFF combo is a bit awkward, it works.

    Your info boils down to this:
    westmetals wrote: »
    RSP, DEM, or if all else fails, Aux2Bat3.

    b) While yes you are correct about EPtW, placing it as the LtC skill makes way for lower level skills. As in my post above... where I demonstrated how you can run a full Aux2Bat with EPtW and Eng Team with only one BOFF.

    c) If you aren't doing Aux2Bat, the same slots could be filled with things like DEM, RSP, or Aux2Damp, among other examples.
    Completely ignoring the already given statement that none of DEM, RSP, or Aux2Damp have any real use outside of highly niche specific scenarios or at higher levels. DEM1 works to trigger Phemenne/KDF variant, Aux2Damp even with doff to buff energy damage res and duration has no role on either heavy or light ships, RSP even boffed is worthless except for like I said possibly high DPS tanks in very predictable organized elite TFO runs.

    Just yesterday did an elite solo patrol in a dread cruiser with RSP3 slotted, did not have any use for the ability despite purposefully tanking and having shields & hull massively damaged, because once the buff runs out it's back to ordinary shield tanking those consistent torp spreads.

    No one mentioned Aux2SIF with high aux power and doff gives decent hull healing due to the very low CD, but the amount of hull healing from damage dealt that can be achieved with a proper setup makes it a self-nerf, not a buff, to slot, outside of like I said nannying to be a healer for someone else which won't work anyways given the 10km range limit and how fast focused enemy fire can melt one in serious trouble.

    I won't get into Aux2Bat as I've rarely used such a setup or needed it outside my own cool-down management strategies which work fine, and already stated I don't particularly chase DPS to need every bit of CD, at least not in this game where it's so expensive and where the meta and nerfs swing wild. I have a Aux2Bat cruiser build right now in a T6 Bortasq' but haven't tried yet to optimize it and see how it does - because I have a LOT of cruisers that could use some purpose for their non-specialty Eng-heavy loadouts that collect dust.

    It's a shame this game's too broken and PVP is dead, or elsewhere we wouldn't be discussing what's useful and what isn't, we'd be fighting in game and the one in the wrong will get farmed until they conform to the meta or apply correct strategy to viable alternative setups assuming they exist.
    Y945Yzx.jpg
    Devs: Provide the option to Turn OFF full screen flashes from enemy ship explosions
    · ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
    «» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
    ﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
  • corinthalascorinthalas Member Posts: 2,235 Arc User
    edited December 2021
    Exactly. Making the most of bad options doesn't magically make them *GOOD* options. They're simply better than no options at all.

    I could slot RSP or DEM, but I don't need one, and the other is ridiculously weak. Aux2Bat? I could. But I've got Aux2Damp for better maneuvering, which is pretty important in a game where the best skills and weaponry are *FORWARD-ARC EXCLUSIVE*. Every second my forward arc isn't on an enemy ship is a second wasted. Swap in a maneuvering console instead? Yeah that just cost me a far more powerful universal console. Great idea. Genius, really.

    Everytime I hop into a ship with a non-spec engineering station at LtComm or Comm, I cringe, because those are LtComm or Comm stations that would have been far more effective as anything other than engineering. Because there just aren't enough good engineering skills.
  • megainexoros#5925 megainexoros Member Posts: 69 Arc User
    edited December 2021
    It's a flying type II phaser(TMP/TWoK), I dig it.

    So, we have a flying phaser, a flying toilet seat, a flying cracked tooth, a flying bottle opener(key fob), and a flying doughnut. Then there is the Kirk class...a broken frisbee + type 1 phaser + several twisted coat hangers. DSC really does 32c ships well.

    Have to give credit to the STO cg peeps...they have done well with the slim pickings they were given. They even fleshed out the reasoning for the absurd DSC ship designs...no small feat.
  • kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    It's a flying type II phaser(TMP/TWoK), I dig it.

    So, we have a flying phaser, a flying toilet seat, a flying cracked tooth, a flying bottle opener(key fob), and a flying doughnut. Then there is the Kirk class...a broken frisbee + type 1 phaser + several twisted coat hangers. DSC really does 32c ships well.

    Have to give credit to the STO cg peeps...they have done well with the slim pickings they were given. They even fleshed out the reasoning for the absurd DSC ship designs...no small feat.

    Ooh, there's also the stapler...and I think two bottle openers. One must be a novelty and probably sticks to the fridge on a magnet.
  • alcyoneserenealcyoneserene Member Posts: 2,412 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    That "statement" is in fact an opinion, one which I have explicitly said I disagree with.

    Bait not taken. Mods in these forums already struck to their 'it's all an opinion' in the past, so I can give no direct response without getting banned, but suffice to repeat what I said above:
    It's a shame this game's too broken and PVP is dead, or elsewhere we wouldn't be discussing what's useful and what isn't, we'd be fighting in game and the one in the wrong will get farmed until they conform to the meta or apply correct strategy to viable alternative setups assuming they exist.
    Y945Yzx.jpg
    Devs: Provide the option to Turn OFF full screen flashes from enemy ship explosions
    · ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
    «» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
    ﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
  • protoneousprotoneous Member Posts: 2,595 Arc User
    A lot of what's being said about non-specialty Lieutenant Commander and Commander engineering bridge officer abilities comes down to personal taste and build style preferences.

    With the event ship what seems to be happening is some who dislike it's bridge officer layout are making blanket statements about the utility of certain abilities that aren't necessarily true in that what they're saying may only apply to them and their own particular style.

    Statements like these might be more reasonable - "I don't like the event ship's boff layout" or "I prefer ships with specialty commander engineering boff slots"

    As veteran players should we be confusing newer players reading this thread with statements that seem to be more related to our own discontent ?
  • corinthalascorinthalas Member Posts: 2,235 Arc User
    edited December 2021
    protoneous wrote: »
    A lot of what's being said about non-specialty Lieutenant Commander and Commander engineering bridge officer abilities comes down to personal taste and build style preferences.

    With the event ship what seems to be happening is some who dislike it's bridge officer layout are making blanket statements about the utility of certain abilities that aren't necessarily true in that what they're saying may only apply to them and their own particular style.

    Statements like these might be more reasonable - "I don't like the event ship's boff layout" or "I prefer ships with specialty commander engineering boff slots"

    As veteran players should we be confusing newer players reading this thread with statements that seem to be more related to our own discontent ?

    You mean other than trading a notable amount of firepower for an irrelevant amount of conditional 'utility' and durability? Yeah, that's not opinion. That's fact. This isn't a "Holy Triad" game of clearly defined roles. Newer players absolutely should be informed of why these skills aren't good, and just how much it takes to turn them from utter garbage into something marginally useful, maybe, if you squint hard enough.
    Post edited by corinthalas on
  • protoneousprotoneous Member Posts: 2,595 Arc User
    edited December 2021
    Some statements being made about the new ship seem close to all or nothing type thinking.

    I've shared some thoughts on how I'd set things up and will continue to try to collaborate with others who want to enjoy their new ship.
  • alcyoneserenealcyoneserene Member Posts: 2,412 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    I did not play the "it's all opinion" card. Nor did I intend to imply that. What I intended to say is what I said: that the statement that @corinthalas and you are making, that no useful upper-level Eng BOFF abilities exist, is a matter of opinion, not an undisputable statement.

    Please kindly read what I actually write, not what you want to argue against.

    That's fair, my mistake for assuming more of it.
    westmetals wrote: »
    As I actually did say, in an Aux2Bat build, although it is not usually the way such builds are done, a Cmdr/Ens setup is workable, leaving room for ET and two EP powers (which can be alternated since they are at minimum CD). That's how I intend to set up this ship, and despite @corinthalas's opinion that using EPtW3 is wasteful compared to EPtW1, and that it would require slotting Aux2Bat3 as the second copy of Aux2Bat... doing precisely that proves that the slots are not themselves a handicap.

    As such:
    Cmdr Eng - EPtE1, Aux2Bat1, EPtW3, Aux2Bat3
    Ens Eng - EngTeam

    That is in fact exactly how I usually set up five-Eng-BOFF cruisers, if they don't have the Cmdr slot as a spec... and if they do, then I end up slotting Aux2Bat1 on the second Eng BOFF (which in this case isn't possible.)

    And I believe that there are options other than EPtW3 and Aux2Bat3 for the two upper slots (that @corinthalas claims are wasteful)... for non-Aux2Bat builds. While they might not be meta, they're certainly not useless.

    In an earlier iteration of the game, around when ISE was introduced (or likely reintroduced) in its form today, the common understanding was every single team member requires 100K hull DPS. My scimitar at the time achieved that as parsed, but none of my many cruisers with standard commander engineering could. In a pre-made team, I predict less is necessary if sufficient non-damaging science-type powers are used - crowd-control to chain warp core breaches, debuffs, maybe even heals.

    Trying the same back then with a standard Cmd Eng over a Tac or Sci or specialist seat, with available equipment then, would be useless in the form of failing.

    Even today my standard cruisers lag behind despite trying to build them for their intended roles - to be tanky, versatile, and to cover much ground (in sector space). Their ship mastery is usually damage resistance, hull healing, and have high hull, medium shields, many weapons, and AoE buffs to damage, shields, movement, and boosting self-aggro/all dmg res based on proximity to friendlies. It's clear to act as tanks they need to draw aggro and also deal good damage. It's more clear that trying to out-heal incoming damage is self-nerfing since the extra time taken to absorb it greatly increases it, while not drawing aggro off the high DPS dealers.

    This can't be called an opinion when it's a problem rooted in the game design as it is today, or at best an unwillingness to address high level standard engineering boff powers to be more in line with how Sci, Tac, and some specialist scale and apply to the requirements of the game.
    Y945Yzx.jpg
    Devs: Provide the option to Turn OFF full screen flashes from enemy ship explosions
    · ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
    «» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
    ﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
  • corinthalascorinthalas Member Posts: 2,235 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    protoneous wrote: »
    A lot of what's being said about non-specialty Lieutenant Commander and Commander engineering bridge officer abilities comes down to personal taste and build style preferences.

    With the event ship what seems to be happening is some who dislike it's bridge officer layout are making blanket statements about the utility of certain abilities that aren't necessarily true in that what they're saying may only apply to them and their own particular style.

    That's pretty much exactly what I meant by my "learn to be flexible" post.

    Unfortunately, some of the other posters in this thread seem to believe that their opinions, are undisputable statements, and therefore that they have a right to attack and belittle others for not agreeing with them.

    Using different skills to achieve a similar result is 'being flexible.'

    Using different skills to achieve a demonstrably *INFERIOR* result is not 'being flexible.' It's making the best of a lousy options. The lousy situation being a bunch of terrible/niche engineering skills as the only options.
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,019 Arc User
    Neither are a choice - The Boimler Effect has completely obsoleted all other forms of boff CD management.​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • protoneousprotoneous Member Posts: 2,595 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    I did not play the "it's all opinion" card. Nor did I intend to imply that. What I intended to say is what I said: that the statement that @corinthalas and you are making, that no useful upper-level Eng BOFF abilities exist, is a matter of opinion, not an undisputable statement.

    Please kindly read what I actually write, not what you want to argue against.

    That's fair, my mistake for assuming more of it.
    westmetals wrote: »
    As I actually did say, in an Aux2Bat build, although it is not usually the way such builds are done, a Cmdr/Ens setup is workable, leaving room for ET and two EP powers (which can be alternated since they are at minimum CD). That's how I intend to set up this ship, and despite @corinthalas's opinion that using EPtW3 is wasteful compared to EPtW1, and that it would require slotting Aux2Bat3 as the second copy of Aux2Bat... doing precisely that proves that the slots are not themselves a handicap.

    As such:
    Cmdr Eng - EPtE1, Aux2Bat1, EPtW3, Aux2Bat3
    Ens Eng - EngTeam

    That is in fact exactly how I usually set up five-Eng-BOFF cruisers, if they don't have the Cmdr slot as a spec... and if they do, then I end up slotting Aux2Bat1 on the second Eng BOFF (which in this case isn't possible.)

    And I believe that there are options other than EPtW3 and Aux2Bat3 for the two upper slots (that @corinthalas claims are wasteful)... for non-Aux2Bat builds. While they might not be meta, they're certainly not useless.

    In an earlier iteration of the game, around when ISE was introduced (or likely reintroduced) in its form today, the common understanding was every single team member requires 100K hull DPS. My scimitar at the time achieved that as parsed, but none of my many cruisers with standard commander engineering could. In a pre-made team, I predict less is necessary if sufficient non-damaging science-type powers are used - crowd-control to chain warp core breaches, debuffs, maybe even heals.

    Trying the same back then with a standard Cmd Eng over a Tac or Sci or specialist seat, with available equipment then, would be useless in the form of failing.

    Even today my standard cruisers lag behind despite trying to build them for their intended roles - to be tanky, versatile, and to cover much ground (in sector space). Their ship mastery is usually damage resistance, hull healing, and have high hull, medium shields, many weapons, and AoE buffs to damage, shields, movement, and boosting self-aggro/all dmg res based on proximity to friendlies. It's clear to act as tanks they need to draw aggro and also deal good damage. It's more clear that trying to out-heal incoming damage is self-nerfing since the extra time taken to absorb it greatly increases it, while not drawing aggro off the high DPS dealers.

    This can't be called an opinion when it's a problem rooted in the game design as it is today, or at best an unwillingness to address high level standard engineering boff powers to be more in line with how Sci, Tac, and some specialist scale and apply to the requirements of the game.

    Thanks for mentioning your reasoning behind why you prefer doing things a certain way. That's an important distinction as compared to some other posts being made.

    It's good to know that I have at least one non-specialist commander engineering ship that meets the requirements of ISE.

    Perhaps this year's event ship will qualify as well ?
Sign In or Register to comment.